Global Workforce Insights - LDC · Attend The New Path Forward: Creating Compelling Career Paths...

Your Quarterly Resource for the Latest Trends Affecting Your Workforce Plan

Global Workforce Insights

Part of the CHRO Insight Series CEB Corporate Leadership Council™

Second Quarter 2015

Print DesignerKelly Suh

Contributing Print DesignerReid Griffler

EditorAmanda Beddingfield

Practice LeaderBrian Kropp

Principal Executive AdvisorDion Love

Research DirectorMatt Dudek

Research AnalystJohn Roman

CEB Talent Management LabsResearch DirectorMark Little

Research ManagerLindsey Walsh

Research ScientistNeha Jain

Senior Research AnalystSajal Jain

Research AnalystMalti Kaul

Research SpecialistNikita Ojha

The CHRO Insight Series

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYNThe pages herein are the property of The Corporate Executive Board Company. No copyrighted materials of The Corporate Executive Board Company may be reproduced or resold without prior approval. For additional copies of this publication, please contact The Corporate Executive Board Company at +1-866-913-2632, or visit www.executiveboard.com.

CEB Corporate Leadership Council™ Content Publishing Solutions

HR NEWS REPORT Functional Insights

GLOBAL WORKFORCE INSIGHTS REPORTWorkforce Insights

CHRO QUARTERLYBusiness Insights

CHRO VIDEO SERIESPersonal Insights

Why We Create This Report

We believe that great ideas—acute insights rooted in

microeconomics and informed by human behavior—are

essential to those accomplishments that change the fortunes

of an individual, an organization, or the world. We discover

and create these ideas and enable members and colleagues

to act on them by delivering them in timely, targeted, and

memorable ways.

3© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN

Key Findings

Labor Market • 7 What You Can Do

Employees remain most optimistic about job prospects in Asia, deviating from increased global pessimism (p. 7). As employees perceive fewer available jobs, make sure your HR

team knows how to debunk common myths about why women are underrepresented in leadership and learn how to close the gap.

Better customize your candidate sourcing strategy to reach active and passive candidates in your markets.

Boost your strategic workforce planning with our big data engine from CEB TalentNeuron.

Employee job-seeking activity showed little change (p. 8).

Worldwide, workforces in large markets slow job seeking significantly (p. 9).

By 2020, the United States will experience an estimated shortage of 1.3 million STEM employees (p. 11).

Attraction • 13

Top 10 reasons employees join new companies did not change (p. 13). Attend The New Path Forward: Creating Compelling Career Paths for Employees and Organizations to learn how the best organizations design careers around high-value opportunities, target passive internal job candidates, expand career conversations beyond the manager, and offer employees job security by making them more employable.

Globally, employees look for similar job attributes as in 2014, but now are even more focused on money, if switching. (p. 14).

CEB Minute Videos

Each quarter, the CHRO Quarterly Magazine and Global Workforce Insights Report are detailed for you in two minutes. Watch these on the go, distribute to your team, and educate your CEO in one simple step.


https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/Events/Abstract.aspx?cid=101281587&home=HP4&s=banner

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/Topics/Abstract.aspx?cid=101126035&fs=1&q=passive+candidates&program=&ds=1

http://www.executiveboard.com/exbd/human-resources/talent-neuron/index.page?

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/Events/Abstract.aspx?cid=101271760&utm_source=clc.executiveboard.com&utm_medium=home&utm_campaign=Meetings#aSeeAlldates


https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ResearchAndTools/Abstract.aspx?cid=101179891

Key Findings (Continued)

Engagement • 15 What You Can Do

Effort and retention metrics improved to start 2015 (p. 16).Read our current issue of CHRO Quarterly Magazine to learn how to align employee engagement efforts with corporate strategy and how 3M’s head of HR uses engagement to drive innovation.

Employees in all regions are exerting more effort, led by growth in North America (p. 17).

Measure more than engagement at your organization with CEB’s ClearAdvantage Check (included in membership).

Employees in North America and ANZ are also increasingly likely to stay in seat (p. 18).

Determine employees’ willingness to execute a strategic plan in your region by assessing the engagement scores of strategically critical talent segments.

Attrition • 20

Future career opportunities remain crucial as the top reason employees leave their jobs (p. 20). Find out why employees are leaving your organization with our exit

survey resource, Departure View.

Translate business strategy into workforce strategy with step-by-step guidance to keep increased compensation-switching premiums from impeding your organizational goals.

Help your HR business partners and generalists build the fundamental compensation knowledge needed to address basic pay questions with confidence and accuracy (requires a CEB Total Rewards Leadership Council membership).

The regional volatility of attrition drivers continued (p. 21).

Compensation-switching premium expectations increased in Q1 for first time in 2010s (p. 22).

Worldwide, merit pay expectations changed minimally (p. 23).


https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/DecisionSupportCenters/Abstract.aspx?cid=101287135



https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ResearchAndTools/Abstract.aspx?cid=100237949&tc=engagement&loc=spo&scAuth=true


https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ExitSurvey.aspx?scAuth=true

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ResearchAndTools/Abstract.aspx?cid=101215699&fs=1&q=workforce+planning+playbook&program=&ds=1

https://www.cr.executiveboard.com/Members/Events/EventReplayAbstract.aspx?cid=101288920


© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN

Global Data Sources by Percentage of Origin in This Report

Looking for More Insight?

View targeted reports on our website.

Forty-five reports for the regions, industries,

and functions of your global business are

available through the Workforce Insights portal.

Each quarter, the Global Workforce Insights Report is sourced from over 18,000 employees in 36 countries to give you the most authoritative look at the latest global and country-level trends so you know what attracts, engages, and retains talent.

Americas

■ Argentina: 0.9% ■ Brazil: 2.6% ■ Canada: 4.4% ■ Chile: 0.9% ■ Colombia: 0.9% ■ Mexico: 2.7% ■ United States: 10.1%

Africa

■ South Africa: 2.2%

Eastern Europe

■ Czech Republic: 0.3% ■ Hungary: 0.3% ■ Poland: 2.2% ■ Romania: 0.3% ■ Russia: 2.2%

Western Europe

■ Belgium and the Netherlands: 4.3%

■ France: 2.2% ■ Germany: 5.5% ■ Italy: 2.2% ■ Nordic Region: 8.7% ■ Spain: 2.2% ■ Switzerland: 2.2% ■ United Kingdom: 6.6%

ANZ

■ Australia: 4.4% ■ New Zealand: 2.2%

Asia

■ China: 4.1% ■ Hong Kong: 0.8% ■ India: 4.2% ■ Indonesia: 2.2% ■ Japan: 2.2% ■ Malaysia and the Philippines: 4.3%

■ Singapore: 2.2% ■ South Korea: 2.2% ■ Taiwan: 2.1% ■ Thailand: 2.2% ■ Vietnam: 2.2%

6

https://clc.executiveboard.com

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ResearchAndTools/Abstract.aspx?cid=101179891) on our website (clc.executiveboard.com

DefinitionThe Job Opportunity Barometer measures employed individuals’ perceptions of the availability and quality of other employment opportunities in their current locations, industries, and functions.

Employees Remain Optimistic About Job Prospects in Asia, Deviating from Increased Global PessimismJob Opportunity Barometer a

Global Employed Labor Force

Weaker Job Opportunity

Perception

Stronger Job Opportunity

Perception

Neutral Job Opportunity

Perception

52.1

53.5

55.0

47.4

48.0

50.2

Q1 2015 n = 4,826 (Asia); 3,301 (North America); 1,201 (Latin America); 22,680 (Global); 1,501 (Australia and New Zealand); 7,674 (Europe).Source: CEB 2010–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.a The global Job Opportunity Barometer is an indexed score calculated from a battery of five questions posed to survey respondents. These answers are combined and

converted to a 100-point scale, with higher values indicating stronger perceptions of job opportunities.

Confirming the European Union’s economic woes, opportunity perception in the region decreased this quarter.

What You Can Do

More than ever, adopting strategies to increase gender diversity within organizational leadership is a business imperative rather than just an equity issue.

This webinar will debunk common myths about why women are underrepresented in higher management and provide strategies for the organization to address these challenges.

54.4 Asia

49.3 Latin America

46.2 Australia and New Zealand

50.1 North America

49.1 Global

45.7 Europe

Q4

20

10

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

2011

Q4

20

11

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

2012

Q4

20

12

Q1 2

013

Q2

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

20

13

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

20

14

Q1 2

015

40

50

60Biennial decline at the global average continued in Q1. This year, employees mirror the job opportunity pessimism of 2011 and 2013.

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Labor Market 7

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/Events/EventReplayAbstract.aspx?cid=101275861&fs=1&q=four+imperatives&program=&ds=1

Worldwide, Employee Job-Seeking Activity Showed Little ChangePercentage of Employees by Degree of Job-Seeking BehaviorGlobal Employed Labor Force

Per

cent

age

of

Em

plo

yees

Q4

20

09

Q2

2010

Q4

20

10

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

20

11

Q4

20

11

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

20

12

Q4

20

12

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

20

13

Q4

20

13

Q1

2015

Q4

20

14

Q3

20

14

Q2

2014

Q1

2014

37.8%

35.4%

26.9%

Q1 2015 n = 22,680.Source: CEB 2009–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.

Job-seeking activity shows minimal change to start the year. Typically, potential candidates show significant increases or decreases in their activity at the beginning of the year, but Q1 2015 bucks this trend.

What You Can Do

See how you can customize your candidate sourcing strategy for any market.

Want to go deeper? Use our Recruiting Effectiveness Dashboard to ensure your recruiters effectively bring the best talent to your organization (requires a CEB Recruiting Leadership Council membership).

Q4

20

09

Q2

2010

Q4

20

10

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

2011

Q4

20

11

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

2012

Q4

20

12

Q1 2

013

Q2

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

20

13

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

20

14

Q1 2

015

10%

30%

50%

43.9% Passive

25.6% Active

30.6% Neutral


https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/Topics/Abstract.aspx?cid=101126035&fs=1&q=passive+candidates&program=&ds=1

https://rr.executiveboard.com/Members/RED/Default.aspx?tc=recruiting_roles&stc=1&loc=mkt

https://rr.executiveboard.com/Members/RED/Default.aspx?tc=recruiting_roles&stc=1&loc=mkt

So

uth

Ko

rea

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Ital

y

Mex

ico

Au

stra

lia

Ch

ina

Bra

zil

New

Zea

lan

d

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

No

rdic

Reg

ion

b

Fra

nce

Sp

ain

Sw

itze

rlan

d

Can

ada

Jap

an

Ger

man

y

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Ru

ssia

Bel

giu

m a

nd

th

e N

eth

erla

nd

s

Ind

ia

Sin

gap

ore

Ind

on

esia

Mal

aysi

a an

d

the

Ph

ilip

pin

es

So

uth

Afr

ica

Worldwide, Workforces in Large Markets Slow Job Seeking SignificantlyActive–Passive Score: Q1 2015a

More Active

Neutral

More Passive

Q1 2015 n = 22,680.Source: CEB 2013–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.a The global Active–Passive Score is an index calculated from a battery of eight questions posed to survey respondents. These answers are combined and converted to a 100-point scale, with higher

values indicating more active job-search activity.b The Nordic Region includes Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.c Solid arrows indicate a statistically significant change at the 95% confidence level, whereas an outlined arrow indicates the change was not significant. This value is determined by response count

and standard deviation; therefore, the solid arrows will not always be the highest or lowest absolute scores.

Significant Change No Significant Change

DefinitionThe Active–Passive Score measures the extent to which employed individuals are inclined and demonstrate effort to look for new jobs.

25.0

50.0

75.0

59.5

54.0 53.1 52.5 51.248.6 48.0 47.1 46.0

43.8 43.3 42.8 42.0 41.1 40.6 40.1 39.5 39.2 38.2 38.035.6 35.4 34.4 33.3

Despite declining in Q1 2015, job-seeking activity is significantly higher worldwide than in Q1 2014.

Year-Over-Year Change (Index Change)

3.6 2.7 1.5 0.6 4.2 6.7 0.5 1.9 3.2 3.2 2.4 2.8 0.1 0.8 0.7 2.1 3.0 1.2 1.6 (0.6) 2.5 (1.2) (0.7) 3.1

Quarter-Over- Quarter Change (Index Change)c

(2.3) 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.6 (0.5) (0.8) 0.5 (0.1) (0.1) 0.7 (0.5) (3.7) (0.2) 1.5 1.7 (1.8) (2.4) (1.7) (0.8) (1.8) (0.4) 0.4

International Average = 43.3

Significant Change

No Significant ChangeCanada and the United States see job-seeking activity drop an average of 2.1 index points to begin 2015.

In Australia, worsening perceptions of job availability (p. 7) are mirrored by a nearly 2x drop in job-seeking activity, a dip of 3.7 index points compared to Q4 2014.

48.648.6 48.0


Use CEB TalentNeuron for Your Strategic Workforce PlanningApply big data and decision science to plan, source, and optimize global talent.

BIG DATA ENGINE ACTIONABLE DECISIONS

1,000+ Cities in 100 Countries

100 Million Knowledge Workers

10,000+ Companies

10,000+ Universities

1,000+ Skills

Talent ■ Roles ■ Jobs ■ Skills ■ Job Domains

Location ■ Countries ■ States ■ Cities ■ Metropolitan Statistical Areas

Competition ■ Industries ■ Companies

Contact us to learn more.

Phone: +1-866-913-6447 | E-Mail: [email protected] | Website: cebglobal.com/talent-neuron

“ Where can I find critical talent?”

“ Where do I have a competitive advantage?”

“ How can I optimize talent costs?”

The largest amount of talent data is processed for your context.

Talent

Location

Competition


By 2020, the United States Will Experience an Estimated Shortage of 1.3 Million STEM EmployeesBecause we believe in great ideas, we will feature the best of CEB TalentNeuron’s analytics and decision support to help you make informed decisions for your global workforce.

Demand–Supply Gap for STEM Skills in United States 2010–2020

7,000

0

8,250

9,500

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

(In

Tho

usan

ds)

9,216 STEM Demand

7,902 STEM Supply

8,251

7,744

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Projections; US Department of Commerce; National Science Foundation; CEB analysis.

Estimation of STEM Jobs:Step 1—Considered actual STEM jobs data between 2010 and 2014; estimate projected job growth based on historical job growth indicators, current job employment trends,

and discussions with HR leaders. We have considered a 19% growth rate over 10 years for projecting the growth (X).

Step 2—Considered current STEM supply baseline for 2010 and subtracted retirement (at 1% national average) and 0.5% (for migration out of STEM related job) (A)

Step 3—Project fresh STEM talent growth rate between 2014–2018 at 4% (B)

Step 4—Estimating STEM supply (Y) = A + B; total GAP for STEM talent = X − Y

The demand–supply gap for STEM talent began in 2013 and is going to widen rapidly in next seven years.

This Quarter’s Insight

The US demand–supply gap (shortage) of STEM talent reaches 1.3 million.


What You Can Do

1. Define the vision for a differentiated EVP.

2. Prioritize and position your EVP.

3. Deliver on your EVP promise.

Visit our EVP Topic Center for more information.

CEB’s EVP FrameworkAn effective EVP allows organizations to better source new employees.

The EVP Framework and the Benefits of a Differentiated EVP

Source: CEB analysis.

Attraction Benefits ■ Reduces the compensation premium needed to hire by 50% ■ Enables organizations to reach deeper into the labor market

to attract passive candidates

Retention Benefits ■ Decreases annual employee turnover by 69% ■ Increases new hire commitment by 29%

Rewards

■ Compensation■ Health Benefits■ Retirement

Benefits■ Vacation

Opportunity

■ Development Opportunity

■ Future Career Opportunity

■ Growth Rate■ Meritocracy■ Stability

Organization

■ Customer Prestige■ Empowerment■ Environmental

Responsibility■ Ethics and Integrity■ Formality of Work

Environment■ “Great Employer”

Recognition■ Inclusion and Diversity■ Industry Desirability■ Market Position■ Organization Size■ Product or Service

Quality■ Respect■ Risk Taking■ Social Responsibility■ Technology Level■ Well-Known Product

Brand

People

■ Camaraderie■ Collegial Work

Environment■ Coworker Quality■ Manager Quality■ People

Management■ Senior Leadership

Reputation

Work

■ Business Travel■ Innovative Work■ Job–Interests

Alignment■ Level of Impact■ Location■ Recognition■ Work–Life Balance

EVPThe set of attributes that the labor market and employees perceive

as the value they gain through employment in the organization

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Attraction 12

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/Topics/Abstract.aspx?cid=100599929






https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/Topics/Abstract.aspx?cid=100612961&scAuth=true

Top 10 Reasons Employees Join New Companies Did Not ChangePercentage of Employees Who Rank the Driver Among the Top Five Attributes Influencing Selection of a Potential EmployerGlobal Employed Labor Force, Q1 2015

Q1 2015 n = 22,680.Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.

10 Most Commonly Cited Attraction Drivers by Employees Worldwide

Rewards WorkPeopleOrganizationOpportunity

Man

ager

Qu

alit

y

Co

mp

ensa

tio

n

Hea

lth

Ben

efits

Vac

atio

n

Ret

irem

ent

Ben

efits

Sta

bili

ty

Res

pec

t

“Gre

at E

mp

loye

r” R

eco

gn

itio

n

Fu

ture

Car

eer

Op

po

rtu

nit

y

Eth

ics

and

Inte

gri

ty

Tech

no

log

y L

evel

Env

iro

nm

enta

l Res

po

nsi

bili

ty

Gro

wth

Rat

e

Em

po

wer

men

t

Mar

ket

Po

siti

on

Incl

usi

on

an

d D

iver

sity

Co

wo

rker

Qu

alit

y

Cu

sto

mer

Pre

stig

e

Wo

rk–L

ife B

alan

ce

Job

–In

tere

sts

Alig

nm

ent

Cam

arad

erie

Rec

og

nit

ion

Bu

sin

ess

Trav

el

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Op

po

rtu

nit

y

Pro

du

ct o

r S

ervi

ce Q

ual

ity

Ind

ust

ry D

esir

abili

ty

Fo

rmal

ity

of

Wo

rk E

nvir

on

men

t

Mer

ito

crac

y

So

cial

Res

po

nsi

bili

ty

Org

aniz

atio

n S

ize

Wel

l-K

no

wn

Pro

du

ct B

ran

d

Co

lleg

ial W

ork

Env

iro

nm

ent

Ris

k Ta

kin

g

Peo

ple

Man

agem

ent

Lo

cati

on

Inn

ova

tive

Wo

rk

Sen

ior

Lea

der

ship

Rep

uta

tio

n

0%

25%

50%

Organizational attributes other than respect and ethics are not attracting many job candidates.

Although important for engagement, performance, and retention, “people” drivers are broadly not critical for potential employees.

Lev

el o

f Im

pac

t


Globally, Employees Look for Similar Job Attributes as in 2014 but Now Are Even More Focused on Money, If SwitchingTop 10 Attraction Drivers for Select Countries or Regions, Q1 2015 change in Rank Compared to Last Quarter and Total Percentage of Potential Candidates Selecting Attribute as One of the Top Five Attributes When Considering an Employer

RA

NK

Global Australia China India Southeast Asiaa United Kingdom United States

1 Compensation 49.1%

Work–Life Balance58.6%

Compensation 68.9%


Work–Life Balance 42.0%


Compensation 56.9%

2Work–Life Balance37.9%

Location 46.9%

Development Opportunity 34.7%

Growth Rate 31.9%

Compensation 33.6%

Location 47.5%


3 Stability35.2% +1 Respect

38.9%

Future Career Opportunity 32.5%

Stability30.8% +1 Stability

30.2%Stability34.4% +1 Stability

40.5%

4 Respect31.1% -1 Stability

37.0%Stability28.3% +1 Compensation

28.1% +1Health Benefits28.5%

Respect 30.0% -1 Location

40.0%

5 Location 30.3% +1 Compensation

28.2%Respect27.3% -1


-2Future Career Opportunity 27.9%

+1 Compensation 28.6%

Health Benefits37.1%

6Future Career Opportunity 23.5%

-1Future Career Opportunity 27.2%

+1Work–Life Balance27.0%

Respect27.8%

Respect27.6% -1

Future Career Opportunity24.7%

Respect25.8%

7Development Opportunity 20.6%

Ethics/Integrity22.8%

-1Health Benefits22.9%

+3 Location 23.2%

Location 25.9% +2 Vacation

21.9%


8 Vacation17.4%

Recognition 18.3% +1 Vacation

17.4% -1Technology Level 20.3%


-1 Recognition 19.7% +2


9Ethics/Integrity17.4%


+1 Location17.0% -1


+2People Management 21.3%

-1Development Opportunity 18.0%

Retirement Benefits22.8%

10Health Benefits16.9%

Job–Interests Alignment 14.7%

+3Industry Desirability 16.0%

+1 Recognition 19.1% -1


People Management 15.8%

-2 Vacation 22.5%

Q1 2015 n = 22,680 (Global); 998 (Australia); 920 (China); 957 (India); 1,956 (Southeast Asia); 1,499 (United Kingdom); 2,300 (United States).Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.

Note: The top drivers of attraction by country are calculated by asking survey respondents to indicate the five attributes in our EVP framework that they consider most important when evaluating a new job. The attributes selected most frequently by respondents are considered the top drivers of attraction in that country or region.

a Southeast Asia includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore.

Compensation is 3 ppt. more important to potential employees worldwide than it was in Q4 2014.

In some regions, employees are prioritizing new attributes in potential organizations. Now, a desirable industry in China, recognition in India, and people management in Southeast Asia are prioritized in the top 10.

What You Can Do

Use the Globalization Portal to better attract employees in the different regions of your business. CHROs can use the resources in this portal to:

■ Hone improvements in their own global HR processes,

■ Direct their team to take action on the latest trends, and

■ Use and distribute worldwide best practices to lead, manage, and work across time zones.








Employee Engagement ModelEmployee engagement is employees’ pride, energy, and optimism that fuels their discretionary effort and intent to stay.

What You Can Do

Use your membership to align employee engagement with business strategy.

Assess Engagement StrategicallyParticipate in CEB’s ClearAdvantage Check to assess not only the engagement of your workforce but also its impact on your unique business priorities.

Contact Us to Learn More

Phone: +1-866-913-6447

E-Mail: [email protected]

Source: CEB analysis.

Engagement Metrics This QuarterPercentage of Employees Indicating High Levels of:

Energy ■ Sense of urgency ■ Excitement and/or enthusiasm ■ Focus

52.4% overall

3.0 ppt.

Optimism ■ Confidence in the future ■ Belief in progress

54.7% overall

1.2 ppt.

Pride ■ Identification with company ■ Recommending the company

57.1% overall

0.4 ppt.

ALIGN

MEN

TAG

ILITY

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Engagement 15



mailto:ClearAdvantageCheck%40executiveboard.com?subject=

mailto:ClearAdvantageCheck%40executiveboard.com?subject=

33.6% Intent to Stay

18.4% Discretionary Effort

10%

25%

40%

10%

25%

40%

Effort and Retention Metrics Improved to Start 2015

Q4

20

09

Q2

2010

Q3

20

10

Q4

20

10

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

20

11

Q4

20

11

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

20

12

Q4

20

12

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

20

13

Q4

20

13

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q1

2015

Q4

20

14

Q3

20

14

Discretionary effort levels improved marginally after a downward trend beginning in Q3 2013.

Despite a mixed 2014, employees are still nearly twice as likely to stay in seat as they were five years ago.

Discretionary EffortEmployee willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty, such as helping others with heavy workloads, volunteering for additional duties, and looking for ways to perform the job more efficiently

Intent to StayAn employee’s desire to stay with the organization, based on whether he or she intends to look for a new job within a year, frequently thinks of quitting, has actively been looking for a new job, or has taken steps such as placing phone calls and sending out résumés


Employees in All Regions Are Exerting More Effort, Led by Growth in North AmericaPercentage of Employees Reporting High Levels of Discretionary Effort by Region

Q4

20

09

Q2

2010

Q3

20

10

Q4

20

10

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

20

11

Q4

20

11

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

20

12

Q4

20

12

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

20

13

Q4

20

13

Q1

2014

Q1

2015

Q4

20

14

Q3

20

14

Q2

2014

35.0%

20.0%

5.0%

17.7%

18.2%

14.9%

10.4%

21.0%

Q1 2015 n = 1,201 (Latin America); 3,301 (North America); 1,501 (Australia and New Zealand); 7,674 (Europe); 4,826 (Asia).Source: CEB 2009–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.1 US Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employee Exoduses Trending: Sterling Tackles Costly Staff Turnover for Private Practice Professionals,” 7 April 2015,

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=102226&Em=2&topicId=141410026&docId=l:2338630777&start=3.

0.0 ppt.

1.5 ppt.

1.2 ppt.

0.1 ppt.

2.3 ppt.

Quarter- Over-QuarterPercentage

Point Changes in Discretionary

Effort Levels

What You Can Do

Determine employees’ willingness to execute a strategic plan in your region by assessing the engagement scores of strategically critical talent segments.

27.6% Latin America

25.1% North America

17.6% Europe

13.5% Asia

21.5% Australia and New Zealand

Employees outside of Europe have been increasing effort since Q3 2014. The distinct regional breakout of effort first seen in 2012 continues this quarter, but recent increases in North America and ANZ threaten to widen the gap between regions with high and low levels of discretionary effort.

Employees in North America report the sharpest increase in effort since Q1 2012. This is a welcome sign after an estimated 30.5 million Americans—22% of the country’s workforce—quit their jobs in 2014.1





Employees in North America and ANZ Are Also Increasingly Likely to Stay in SeatPercentage of Employees Reporting High Levels of Intent to Stay, by Region

50.0%

30.0%

10.0%

11.5%

23.5%

Q1 2015 n = 3,301 (North America); 7,674 (Europe); 1,501 (Australia and New Zealand); 1,201 (Latin America); 4,826 (Asia).Source: CEB 2009–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.

(0.7) ppt.

5.6 ppt.

3.3 ppt.43.5% North America

1.4 ppt.40.1% Europe

(0.7) ppt.36.1% Latin America

37.4% Australia and New Zealand

19.7% Asia

Employees in Asia report continued decreases in discretionary effort, returning to 2013 levels. This is of particular concern after overall increases from 2009–2012.

ANZ employees reported the largest increase in their intent to stay with their employer this past quarter. The combination of increased effort and intent to stay bodes well for the region.

27.5%

29.9%

What You Can Do

With more employees planning to stay, make sure they know the path forward so careers do not stall at your organization.

Attend The New Path Forward: Creating Compelling Career Paths for Employees and Organizations to learn how the best organizations design careers around high-value opportunities, target passive internal job candidates, expand career conversations beyond the manager, and offer employees job security by making them more employable.

Q4

20

09

Q2

2010

Q3

20

10

Q4

20

10

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

20

11

Q4

20

11

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

20

12

Q4

20

12

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

20

13

Q4

20

13

Q1

2014

Q1

2015

Q4

20

14

Q3

20

14

Q2

2014

Quarter- Over-QuarterPercentage

Point Change in Discretionary

Effort Levels

Surging 3.3 ppt., North America increased its lead in the number of employees exerting high discretionary effort.

27.9%






Get the Most from Your Hardest WorkersEighteen percent of the workforce is exerting high levels of discretionary effort, and more than half of them are likely to stay in seat.

Percentage of Employees Reporting High Levels of Discretionary Effort, Q1 2015

High Discretionary Effort

Neutral or Low Discretionary Effort

Distribution of Intent to Stay for Global Employees Reporting High Discretionary Effort Q1 2015

7.5% Low

6.2% Somewhat Low

19.1% Neutral

14.7% Somewhat High

52.5% High

Q1 2015 n = 22,680.Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.

Q1 2015 n = 4,175 employees with high discretionary effort.Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.

81.6%

18.4%

What You Can Do

Read our current issue of CHRO Quarterly Magazine to learn how to align employee engagement efforts with corporate strategy and how 3M’s head of HR uses engagement to drive innovation.

Part of the CHRO Insight Series CEB Corporate Leadership Council™

Cut Through the Communication Permafrost: Aligning Employees with Corporate Strategy

The Value of Employee Engagement Is Cloudy: Learn How to Make It Clear Again

In This Issue

Employee Engagement

CHRO Quarterly

Second Quarter 2015

Voice of the CHRO

Marlene McGrathSenior Vice President of Human Resources at 3M

Drive Returns on Employee Engagement Investments

A Magazine for Chief Human Resources Officers




https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ResearchAndTools/Abstract.aspx?cid=101179891&home=HP1

0%

25%

50%

0%

25%

50%

Sen

ior

Lea

der

ship

Rep

uta

tio

n

Fo

rmal

ity

of

Wo

rk E

nvir

on

men

t

Co

mp

ensa

tio

n

Hea

lth

Ben

efits

Vac

atio

n

Ret

irem

ent

Ben

efits

Sta

bili

ty

Res

pec

t

Env

iro

nm

enta

l Res

po

nsi

bili

ty

Fu

ture

Car

eer

Op

po

rtu

nit

y

Eth

ics

and

Inte

gri

ty

Tech

no

log

y L

evel

“Gre

at E

mp

loye

r” R

eco

gn

itio

n

Gro

wth

Rat

e

So

cial

Res

po

nsi

bili

ty

Mar

ket

Po

siti

on

Incl

usi

on

an

d D

iver

sity

Co

wo

rker

Qu

alit

y

Cu

sto

mer

Pre

stig

e

Wo

rk–L

ife B

alan

ce

Job

–In

tere

sts

Alig

nm

ent

Cam

arad

erie

Rec

og

nit

ion

Lev

el o

f Im

pac

t

Bu

sin

ess

Trav

el

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Op

po

rtu

nit

y

Pro

du

ct o

r S

ervi

ce Q

ual

ity

Ind

ust

ry D

esir

abili

ty

Mer

ito

crac

y

Em

po

wer

men

t

Org

aniz

atio

n S

ize

Wel

l-K

no

wn

Pro

du

ct B

ran

d

Co

lleg

ial W

ork

Env

iro

nm

ent

Ris

k Ta

kin

g

Peo

ple

Man

agem

ent

Lo

cati

on

Inn

ova

tive

Wo

rk

Man

ager

Qu

alit

y

Future Career Opportunities Remain Crucial as the Top Reason Employees Leave Their JobsPercentage of Departing Employees Who Rank the Driver Among the Top Five Most Dissatisfying at Their Previous JobsGlobal Employed Labor Force, Q1 2015

10 Most Commonly Cited Attrition Drivers by Employees Globally

Q1 2015 n = 12,094.Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey; CEB 2015 Departure View Exit Survey.

Rewards WorkPeopleOrganizationOpportunity

Future career opportunities are a powerful reason employees leave, so much so that next highest reason is 6.1 ppt. away. The average distance between all other global drivers is 1.8 ppt.

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Attrition 20

The Regional Volatility of Attrition Drivers ContinuedTop 10 Attrition Drivers for Select Countries or Regions, Q1 2015Change in Rank Compared to Last Quarter and Total Percentage of Departing Employees Selecting Attribute as One of the Top Five Most Dissatisfying Attributes at Their Previous Jobs

Q1 2015 n = 12,094 (Global); 571 (Australia); 266 (China); 418 (India); 500 (Southeast Asia); 518 (United Kingdom); 5,288 (United States).Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey; CEB 2015 Departure View Exit Survey.

Note: The top drivers of attrition by country are calculated by asking respondents to our Departure View Exit Survey and newly hired respondents to our Global Labor Market Survey to indicate the five attributes in our EVP framework with which they were most dissatisfied while at their former employer. The attributes selected most frequently by respondents are considered the top drivers of attrition in that country or region.

a Southeast Asia includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore.

RA

NK

Global Australia China India Southeast Asiaa United Kingdom United States

1Future Career Opportunity 41.6%


Compensation 60.6%

Growth Rate 37.6% +2 Compensation

35.2%



2 +1 Compensation 35.5%



+1Future Career Opportunity 36.5%

+2Work–Life Balance34.3%

+3 Recognition 40.9% +1


3 -1People Management 34.6%



+2 Compensation 32.2% -2



-1 Compensation 36.9%

4 +1Development Opportunity 29.1%

Recognition 32.0% +2


+5Development Opportunity 30.9%

-2People Management 30.4%


Manager Quality31.2%

5 -1Manager Quality28.0%

Manager Quality30.2%

Recognition 25.4% -1 Recognition

30.6% +1Manager Quality28.2%

-1 Compensation 34.8%


6 +1Work–Life Balance27.9%

+1 Respect27.0% -2


-4People Management 27.8%


+2Manager Quality28.8%

Respect28.0%

7 +1 Respect27.5% +1 Compensation

26.6% +1 Respect18.5% -1


Recognition 25.1% -1


+1 Recognition 26.7%

8 -2 Recognition 26.6% -2


+3Manager Quality18.5%

-1Manager Quality22.1%

+3 Growth Rate 19.2% -1 Respect

24.7% -1Development Opportunity 26.6%

9 Stability17.4%

Stability16.9% +1


+1 Stability21.8%


Location15.7%

Stability17.6%

10 Location17.1% +3 Location

14.5% +2Innovative Work14.1%

-2 Location 20.3% +2

Coworker Quality18.6%

Stability13.8%

Growth Rate 16.0%

New frustrations emerged with manager quality and lack of innovative work in China and growth rate and coworker quality in Southeast Asia.

What You Can Do

Find out why employees are leaving your organization with our exit survey resource, Departure View.

Now you can survey departing employees and receive detailed feedback on their reasons for leaving, new job status, areas of dissatisfaction, and likelihood to recommend your organization.

Contact us to learn more: [email protected]

Lack of recognition emerged as the second most important reason for employees in the United Kingdom to quit their jobs.


https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ExitSurvey.aspx

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ExitSurvey.aspx

mailto:HR.SurveyRequests%40executiveboard.com?subject=

mailto:HR.SurveyRequests%40executiveboard.com?subject=

Compensation-Switching Premium Expectations Increased in Q1 for First Time in 2010sGlobal Compensation-Switching PremiumPercent Change Expected in Total Compensation

Q1 2015 n = 5,698.Source: CEB 2011–2015 Departure View Exit Surveys.

DefinitionThe compensation-switching premium measures departed employees’ anticipated compensation changes at their new organizations.

What You Can Do

Translate business strategy into workforce strategy with step-by-step guidance to proactively manage increased compensation-switching premiums so you know the talent you build versus the talent you buy.

15.6%

16.8%

14.8%

15.0%

14.8%

15.7%

14.4%

15.1%

14.8%

15.1%

14.1%

15.0%

14.8%

15.4%

15.7%

Q3

2011

Q4

20

11

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

2012

Q4

20

12

Q1 2

013

Q2

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

20

13

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

20

14

Q1 2

015

13.0%

15.0%

17.0%

Bucking a trend seen each year in Q1, employees now expect more pay to change roles. Employers typically pay more to lure new hires in Q4, but are not used to the premium also increasing in Q1.




Year-Over-Year Change (ppt.)

(1.1) (1.3) (1.6) 0.1 (2.8) (1.4) (0.9) (1.5) 0.0 0.6 (1.8) (0.1) 0.4 (0.7) (0.3) (0.3) (2.6) 0.3 (0.7) (1.8) (0.7) 0.2 (0.7) (0.1)

(4.0%)

6.0%

16.0%

(4.0%)

6.0%

16.0%

13.1%12.6%

9.1% 8.9%

7.8%7.2%

4.8% 4.5% 4.5%3.7% 3.4%

2.7% 2.6% 2.3% 2.1% 2.0%1.6% 1.6% 1.4%

1.0% 0.9% 0.9%

(0.3%)

(1.5%)

Worldwide, Merit Pay Expectations Changed Minimally Stark differences remain between merit increases expected by employees in developing economies (e.g., India, Brazil) and the more developed economic powers (e.g., United States, Germany, France).

Employee Expectations for Merit Pay, Q1 2015By Country or Region

International Average = 4.5%

Q1 2015 n = 22,680. Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.a The Nordic Region includes Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.b Solid arrows indicate a statistically significant change at the 95% confidence level, whereas an outlined arrow indicates that the change was not significant. This value is determined by response

count and standard deviation; therefore, the solid arrows will not always be the highest or lowest absolute scores.

Can

ada

Fra

nce

No

rdic

Reg

ion

a

Sp

ain

Bra

zil

Jap

an

Ital

y

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

Un

ited

Sta

tes

So

uth

Afr

ica

Ind

ia

Mal

aysi

a an

d

the

Ph

ilip

pin

es

Ru

ssia

Ind

on

esia

Sw

itze

rlan

d

New

Zea

lan

d

Au

stra

lia

Ger

man

y

Ch

ina

Bel

giu

m a

nd

th

e N

eth

erla

nd

s

Sin

gap

ore

So

uth

Ko

rea

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Mex

ico

Quarter-Over- Quarter Change (ppt.)b

1.8 (0.4) 0.7 0.9 (0.1) 0.3 0.5 (0.3) 0.6 0.6 (0.1) (0.2) 0.7 0.5 0.3 (0.3) (3.0) (0.1) (0.4) (0.1) (0.5) 0.1 0.1 (0.5)

What You Can Do

Help your HR business partners and generalists build the fundamental compensation knowledge needed to address basic pay questions with confidence and accuracy.

Significant Change

No Significant Change

3.7%





Appendix

Discretionary Effort Trends by Function • 25

Intent-to-Stay Trends by Function • 26

Discretionary Effort Trends by Industry • 27

Intent-to-Stay Trends by Industry • 28

Definitions of EVP Attributes • 29


Discretionary Effort Trends by FunctionPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Discretionary Effort By Function

Source: CEB 2011–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.

Note: Quarter-over-quarter changes calculated from unrounded data.a Corporate includes corporate legal, strategy, and real estate departments.b Historical discretionary effort trends for the HR function have been slightly adjusted to reflect a more accurate picture of the corporate HR function.

Function Q1 2011

Q2 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q1 2012

Q2 2012

Q3 2012

Q4 2012

Q1 2013

Q2 2013

Q3 2013

Q4 2013

Q1 2014

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 2014

Q1 2015

Quarter-Over-

Quarter Change

Communications 13.2% 12.6% 18.0% 19.8% 15.2% 16.8% 15.5% 16.6% 17.3% 15.1% 18.6% 17.2% 15.6% 12.0% 15.3% 13.0% 17.1% 4.0%

Corporate a 16.9% 25.3% 23.5% 25.3% 25.7% 23.7% 24.6% 23.5% 24.1% 25.8% 27.5% 26.0% 23.9% 21.4% 21.7% 20.1% 23.4% 3.3%

Customer Contact 15.6% 20.4% 18.6% 19.0% 20.1% 17.7% 16.8% 18.0% 18.9% 18.5% 20.6% 19.8% 20.8% 16.9% 17.8% 19.3% 18.9% (0.3%)

Finance and Accounting 13.5% 19.5% 15.0% 18.9% 19.5% 19.5% 18.5% 17.7% 16.2% 18.3% 21.1% 19.6% 19.0% 18.5% 18.0% 17.8% 18.3% 0.4%

HRb 18.0% 24.0% 19.2% 19.8% 22.4% 20.9% 23.4% 21.7% 22.6% 23.1% 24.0% 21.8% 20.3% 21.5% 20.2% 20.2% 19.9% (0.3%)

IT 11.5% 15.5% 16.4% 17.1% 17.2% 17.9% 18.2% 16.0% 16.5% 18.9% 18.4% 19.9% 17.6% 18.4% 16.6% 17.5% 15.9% (1.6%)

Manufacturing 13.6% 17.0% 17.8% 16.8% 18.0% 16.2% 17.4% 15.3% 14.3% 17.5% 15.9% 15.5% 16.1% 15.8% 15.1% 16.1% 17.9% 1.8%

Marketing and Market Research 11.2% 19.1% 19.7% 17.5% 18.5% 14.8% 17.9% 11.7% 15.8% 18.0% 17.8% 18.0% 18.6% 18.9% 17.1% 19.4% 22.1% 2.7%

Operations 18.5% 23.3% 21.5% 21.2% 22.6% 22.3% 22.9% 20.6% 20.7% 22.0% 23.2% 22.6% 22.4% 21.5% 20.1% 19.3% 21.4% 2.2%

Quality 13.8% 18.8% 18.5% 17.4% 18.4% 16.2% 17.5% 18.8% 17.1% 20.4% 19.6% 19.5% 20.6% 17.9% 16.9% 17.9% 17.8% 0.0%

R&D and Engineering 11.3% 14.8% 17.1% 15.2% 17.6% 17.5% 18.4% 16.1% 17.6% 17.1% 18.2% 17.1% 18.1% 17.0% 15.4% 16.2% 16.4% 0.3%

Retail 19.3% 23.1% 21.6% 23.8% 23.6% 22.7% 20.9% 23.6% 21.7% 19.5% 22.2% 23.3% 20.4% 21.4% 20.0% 20.2% 21.8% 1.5%

Sales 13.5% 19.5% 17.6% 19.8% 19.7% 21.0% 19.4% 20.2% 18.7% 21.4% 18.8% 17.2% 18.4% 18.0% 17.9% 18.4% 17.9% (0.5%)

Supply Chain and Logistics 16.5% 19.9% 17.7% 21.0% 21.5% 19.1% 20.0% 17.6% 18.4% 17.7% 16.5% 19.7% 21.5% 18.8% 18.9% 17.6% 19.6% 2.0%

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Appendix 25

Intent-to-Stay Trends by FunctionPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Intent to Stay By Function


Note: Quarter-over-quarter changes calculated from unrounded data.a Corporate includes corporate legal, strategy, and real estate departments.b Historical discretionary effort trends for the HR function have been slightly adjusted to reflect a more accurate picture of the corporate HR function.

Function Q1 2011

Q2 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q1 2012

Q2 2012

Q3 2012

Q4 2012

Q1 2013

Q2 2013

Q3 2013

Q4 2013

Q1 2014

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 2014

Q1 2015

Quarter-Over-

Quarter Change

Communications 24.3% 25.2% 33.2% 34.0% 30.7% 28.0% 28.2% 28.4% 26.8% 26.9% 29.1% 31.7% 34.5% 28.0% 28.5% 28.5% 29.7% 1.2%

Corporate a 29.7% 34.6% 35.3% 40.2% 37.0% 33.9% 39.0% 38.8% 38.6% 37.8% 39.0% 35.9% 42.1% 40.8% 36.3% 37.5% 42.4% 4.9%

Customer Contact 25.5% 28.8% 29.3% 30.4% 30.9% 29.2% 30.2% 31.1% 31.6% 32.2% 32.8% 32.2% 34.8% 33.7% 28.1% 31.7% 30.8% (0.8%)

Finance and Accounting 29.6% 32.9% 33.1% 31.7% 32.4% 33.7% 30.4% 33.5% 31.1% 31.4% 32.2% 33.6% 34.3% 36.1% 32.8% 33.9% 31.8% (2.1%)

HR b 28.2% 29.6% 33.7% 35.3% 33.2% 32.8% 31.4% 33.7% 32.3% 38.5% 32.8% 32.2% 37.7% 39.1% 33.0% 33.5% 35.1% 1.6%

IT 24.3% 28.5% 25.7% 26.9% 26.0% 26.6% 25.7% 27.5% 25.9% 27.3% 29.5% 27.8% 31.5% 28.3% 26.5% 27.2% 28.0% 0.9%

Manufacturing 28.6% 30.7% 33.0% 32.3% 32.0% 32.1% 30.7% 31.3% 31.4% 34.0% 33.9% 30.0% 37.6% 35.5% 32.3% 30.6% 33.5% 2.9%

Marketing and Market Research 22.1% 26.3% 23.4% 29.5% 25.8% 24.7% 26.2% 28.9% 26.5% 23.4% 27.5% 25.4% 29.4% 30.7% 26.2% 30.3% 28.1% (2.2%)

Operations 33.3% 34.8% 37.3% 37.4% 36.9% 35.7% 35.6% 36.2% 38.8% 37.7% 37.9% 37.4% 40.5% 41.6% 38.3% 37.9% 39.2% 1.4%

Quality 31.4% 29.5% 34.8% 30.1% 33.0% 31.6% 31.0% 30.5% 32.0% 31.3% 33.2% 35.1% 39.0% 37.5% 34.8% 37.3% 32.5% (4.8%)

R&D and Engineering 23.0% 25.6% 28.4% 24.9% 28.4% 26.6% 29.3% 27.5% 31.0% 29.6% 30.3% 26.6% 35.0% 32.3% 28.9% 29.8% 30.8% 1.0%

Retail 27.6% 29.0% 31.7% 31.5% 29.5% 30.0% 31.6% 30.8% 32.4% 31.3% 33.9% 35.0% 34.4% 34.5% 30.8% 30.2% 32.0% 1.8%

Sales 28.7% 29.4% 30.8% 31.4% 32.7% 33.0% 30.8% 32.1% 33.1% 34.7% 31.8% 32.6% 36.0% 35.9% 31.4% 35.1% 35.7% 0.6%

Supply Chain and Logistics 28.6% 33.9% 33.5% 39.4% 36.5% 33.9% 37.8% 34.0% 32.7% 34.1% 34.5% 34.8% 39.2% 38.2% 36.0% 30.1% 37.0% 6.9%


Discretionary Effort Trends by IndustryPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Discretionary Effort By Industry


Note: Quarter-over-quarter changes calculated from unrounded data.

Function Q1 2011

Q2 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q1 2012

Q2 2012

Q3 2012

Q4 2012

Q1 2013

Q2 2013

Q3 2013

Q4 2013

Q1 2014

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 2014

Q1 2015

Quarter-Over-

Quarter Change

Construction 15.6% 20.6% 19.3% 18.6% 19.4% 17.5% 19.4% 17.3% 17.7% 17.7% 18.0% 19.1% 17.2% 18.1% 16.9% 14.9% 16.4% 1.4%

Consumer Goods 15.4% 23.0% 17.2% 18.5% 22.3% 17.0% 20.1% 21.6% 17.5% 19.0% 20.9% 19.0% 21.9% 20.7% 18.7% 20.2% 23.4% 3.2%

Education 15.4% 21.0% 23.4% 21.8% 22.8% 21.9% 22.1% 20.9% 21.4% 22.7% 24.4% 22.8% 23.2% 19.2% 20.6% 19.6% 19.2% (0.3%)

Financial Services and Insurance 13.5% 18.9% 17.8% 19.2% 19.5% 18.7% 18.9% 19.7% 18.5% 20.7% 21.2% 20.3% 19.8% 18.4% 17.8% 16.6% 17.7% 1.1%

Government 18.3% 20.5% 17.1% 17.7% 17.6% 15.1% 14.0% 14.4% 18.9% 20.0% 21.1% 19.5% 20.1% 19.8% 17.0% 17.9% 17.3% (0.6%)

Health Care 19.3% 23.3% 22.2% 20.4% 22.2% 22.3% 21.9% 19.3% 22.2% 20.7% 20.3% 21.1% 20.7% 19.2% 21.3% 17.5% 19.5% 2.0%

Leisure and Hospitality 17.3% 21.7% 21.1% 17.9% 19.0% 18.1% 22.3% 18.9% 17.8% 20.5% 21.8% 22.2% 22.6% 19.5% 17.8% 18.7% 18.4% (0.3%)

Manufacturing 12.8% 18.1% 18.0% 18.2% 19.4% 18.7% 19.0% 16.4% 16.4% 19.7% 18.9% 18.4% 18.1% 17.5% 15.5% 17.9% 17.9% 0.1%

Professional Services 14.4% 19.1% 19.2% 20.4% 19.7% 20.0% 19.7% 17.3% 20.8% 19.6% 21.2% 20.0% 20.5% 19.8% 17.7% 18.3% 20.2% 1.9%

Retail 18.3% 22.4% 20.7% 21.9% 22.8% 22.3% 20.1% 21.4% 19.7% 20.5% 20.2% 21.3% 18.8% 19.4% 20.1% 19.1% 20.1% 1.0%

Technology 11.2% 16.6% 16.6% 17.8% 16.8% 18.2% 17.8% 16.4% 15.2% 17.6% 18.5% 17.5% 16.4% 16.5% 15.6% 16.9% 15.8% (1.1%)

Travel and Transportation 13.0% 18.4% 16.7% 18.7% 20.2% 19.6% 16.5% 17.5% 19.3% 16.2% 19.3% 20.4% 20.1% 16.2% 19.7% 15.0% 17.8% 2.8%

Utilities 12.5% 17.1% 15.2% 17.0% 16.9% 14.7% 17.7% 15.0% 16.9% 15.4% 16.8% 12.6% 16.1% 15.2% 16.5% 18.0% 14.7% (3.2%)


Intent-to-Stay Trends by IndustryPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Intent to Stay By Industry

Function Q1 2011

Q2 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q1 2012

Q2 2012

Q3 2012

Q4 2012

Q1 2013

Q2 2013

Q3 2013

Q4 2013

Q1 2014

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 2014

Q1 2015

Quarter-Over-

Quarter Change

Construction 23.4% 30.0% 30.4% 30.5% 28.4% 30.1% 30.7% 31.6% 30.2% 31.2% 31.3% 32.4% 32.8% 34.5% 31.4% 32.0% 31.4% (0.6%)

Consumer Goods 26.9% 31.0% 29.6% 30.3% 31.6% 30.7% 32.2% 30.5% 31.7% 29.8% 30.7% 30.8% 36.4% 37.2% 28.7% 32.6% 32.6% (0.1%)

Education 33.7% 36.8% 38.0% 37.0% 36.9% 34.9% 34.6% 35.7% 39.0% 38.7% 38.7% 39.5% 42.6% 40.5% 37.2% 36.8% 36.0% (0.9%)

Financial Services and Insurance 28.7% 31.1% 32.1% 31.2% 31.3% 28.8% 31.2% 32.3% 29.9% 31.0% 33.6% 29.6% 35.6% 33.9% 30.7% 31.8% 33.0% 1.2%

Government 37.3% 39.7% 39.3% 42.3% 41.9% 40.1% 39.8% 41.7% 38.8% 41.6% 38.8% 40.7% 42.0% 43.3% 39.1% 41.3% 38.2% (3.0%)

Health Care 33.6% 38.7% 36.7% 36.9% 38.2% 34.5% 35.0% 36.2% 37.1% 37.6% 37.2% 37.9% 42.9% 40.5% 40.3% 38.7% 36.8% (1.9%)

Leisure and Hospitality 23.5% 25.0% 30.2% 25.0% 29.3% 28.5% 27.1% 28.3% 27.1% 27.8% 33.1% 28.0% 28.4% 31.1% 27.8% 27.2% 32.0% 4.8%

Manufacturing 27.4% 29.3% 28.9% 30.2% 30.7% 29.1% 30.1% 30.7% 30.6% 33.2% 29.5% 32.5% 34.6% 32.6% 29.0% 31.0% 31.3% 0.3%

Professional Services 29.4% 33.7% 31.4% 33.8% 32.2% 33.1% 33.8% 32.2% 33.5% 31.4% 32.6% 31.4% 38.3% 35.6% 31.1% 33.4% 36.1% 2.7%

Retail 28.0% 29.0% 31.1% 30.6% 29.1% 30.8% 30.3% 31.3% 32.9% 30.6% 31.2% 33.7% 32.7% 34.3% 30.1% 29.9% 32.4% 2.5%

Technology 24.0% 26.6% 26.9% 28.0% 25.2% 27.0% 25.0% 26.2% 26.4% 27.8% 28.9% 24.1% 30.7% 27.8% 26.0% 26.7% 28.2% 1.6%

Travel and Transportation 30.0% 33.7% 34.3% 35.7% 34.7% 35.4% 36.1% 32.8% 37.6% 35.7% 34.1% 32.5% 38.1% 38.3% 35.3% 33.2% 35.5% 2.2%

Utilities 28.1% 38.7% 32.9% 35.7% 30.9% 31.0% 28.3% 32.5% 31.9% 33.6% 37.3% 31.5% 38.1% 37.4% 36.7% 34.3% 34.3% 0.0%


Note: Quarter-over-quarter changes calculated from unrounded data.


Definitions of EVP AttributesOur EVP model comprises 38 attributes that drive attraction and retention.

Attribute Definition

Business Travel The amount of out-of-town business travel required by the job

Camaraderie Whether working for the organization provides opportunities to socialize with other employees

Collegial Work Environment Whether the work environment is team oriented and collaborative

Compensation The competitiveness of the job’s financial compensation package

Coworker Quality The quality of the coworkers in the organization

Customer Prestige The reputation of the clients and customers served in performing the job

Development Opportunities The developmental and educational opportunities provided by the jobs and organizations

Empowerment The level of involvement employees have in decisions that affect their jobs and careers

Environmental Responsibility The organization’s level of commitment to environmental health and sustainability

Ethics and Integrity The organization’s commitment to ethics and integrity

Formality of Work Environment Whether the organization maintains a casual work environment

Future Career Opportunities The future career opportunities provided by organization

“Great Employer” Recognition Whether the organization’s reputation as an employer has been rated highly by a third-party organization

Growth Rate The growth rate of the organization’s business

Health Benefits The comprehensiveness of the organization’s health benefits

Inclusion and Diversity The organization’s level of commitment to having an inclusive and diverse workforce

We compiled a master list of more than 200 employment characteristics and evaluated it for similarity, distinctiveness, universality, and overall ratability, which led to the consolidated list of 38 attributes. This final list can be grouped into five categories: rewards, opportunity, organization, work, and people.


Definitions of EVP Attributes (Continued)

Attribute Definition

Industry Desirability The desirability of the organization’s industry to the respondent

Innovative Work The opportunity provided by the job to work on innovative, leading-edge projects

Job–Interests Alignment Whether the job responsibilities match your interests

Level of Impact The level of direct impact the job has on business outcomes

Location The location of the jobs offered by the organization

Manager Quality The quality of the organization’s managers

Market Position The competitive position the organization holds in its market(s)

Meritocracy Whether employees are rewarded and promoted based on their achievements

Organization Size The size of the organization’s workforce

People Management The organization’s reputation for managing people

Product or Service Quality The organization’s product- or service-quality reputation

Recognition The amount of recognition provided to employees by the organization

Respect The degree of respect the organization shows employees

Retirement Benefits The comprehensiveness of the organization’s retirement benefits

Risk Taking The amount of risk the organization encourages employees to take

Senior Leadership Reputation The quality of the organization’s senior leadership

Social Responsibility The organization’s level of commitment to social responsibility (e.g., community service, philanthropy)

Stability The level of stability of the organization and the job

Technology Level The extent to which the organization invests in modern technology and equipment

Vacation The amount of holiday or vacation time employees earn annually

Well-Known Product Brand The level of awareness in the marketplace for the product’s brand

Work–Life Balance The extent to which the job allows you to balance your work and other interests


CEB Corporate Leadership Council™

clc.executiveboard.com

+1-571-303-3000 (North America)

+44-(0)20-7632-6000 (Europe, Middle East, and Africa)

+61-(0)2-9321-7500 (Asia–Pacific)

The CHRO Insight Series

CHRO Quarterly Magazine

Business insights and implications for heads of HR on leading their organization and HR function, featuring personal stories from leading HR executives

HR News Report

Quarterly functional insights on advances, challenges, and opportunities in HR categorized by 10 key functional areas

Global Workforce Insights Report

Quarterly workforce insights on global and country-level changes about what attracts, engages, and retains employees, based on data from 18,000+ employees in 36+ countries

CHRO Video Series

Personal insights from leading heads of HR on the most important relationships and activities CHROs must manage

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN


Global Workforce Insights - LDC · Attend The New Path Forward: Creating Compelling Career Paths...

Documents

Transcript of Global Workforce Insights - LDC · Attend The New Path Forward: Creating Compelling Career Paths...